Politics, more often than not, plays out as a battle between two emotions: hope and fear. It trades on a sense of optimism that the challenges of everyday life - educating children, financial security, juggling work and family - might be eased, if only partially, through the political process.

At the same time, it needles away at a darker emotion: a fear of loss that is intrinsic to us all. Will our cities become more choked? Will our taxes be frittered away? Will our jobs go to overseas labour? Is it safe to venture out at night? Are our borders secure? What if the economy stumbles? What if our hospitals are overwhelmed?

Successful politicians tend to achieve something resembling an equilibrium between the two forces. John Howard, for example, played to his battlers for years distributing the extraordinary benefits of the mining boom through various direct cash handouts and transfer payments. In this sense, he was historically lucky.

He also cleverly exploited our natural aversion by focusing on economic management, interest rates, national security and border protection. Rightly or wrongly, it was an effective political tactic for more than a decade.

Advertisement

Such a balance has not been achieved in recent years in Australia. The politics of negativity now overwhelmingly dominate as the prevailing political force. There are perhaps two broad reasons. First, recent history has shown negativity to be effective as a strategy, particularly for political parties in opposition.

A positive agenda can carry significant risks, as the Rudd government discovered by over-extending itself to the point where it struggled to implement its agenda. On the other hand, the main risk associated with exploiting the darker side of nature is being seen as ''too negative'', as Tony Abbott has discovered.

Abbott may have lost skin (he is one of the least popular opposition leaders in recent history). But he has also inflicted massive damage on the Labor federal government. As such, the benefits of this approach have probably outweighed the costs from a strategic perspective.

But a second less obvious reason for our slide into negativity is that it costs money to appeal to our optimistic side. Right now cash is in short supply.

This brings us to the Baillieu government. Unlike Abbott, Ted Baillieu stylistically tends to avoid personal attacks. Rather than naming names, he prefers generalities, for example, referring to the opposition in Parliament as ''some people'', or individual journalists as ''commentators''.

Despite this, a lack of money at the state level and a refusal by the state government to countenance taking on additional debt for infrastructure has forced Baillieu and his ministers to increasingly rely on the negative in shaping his political narrative.

This is reflected at the policy level, with a heavy focus on punitive (and cost-free) proposals, the latest being increased fines for parents whose children fail to attend school.

His campaign message may have been ''fix the problems, build the future''. Yet, as one wag put it, it might as well now be ''complain about the problems, blame someone else''.

In recent weeks, Baillieu dismissed concerns voiced by business groups about the lack of a forward agenda for infrastructure as ''just wrong''. He continues to blame the former Labor government for inherited major project cost blowouts, two years after becoming Premier.

He has expended considerable energy railing against Gillard government decisions to cut Victoria's GST share and retrospectively pare back the growth in hospital funding because of population revisions.

He frequently warns that Victoria is in danger of being priced out of major projects, highlighting the need for a national inquiry into rising construction costs. He insists he will not jeopardise Victoria's triple-A credit rating by taking the state further into debt, with an economic plan to fund 84 per cent of the government's infrastructure spending using surpluses, compared with 44 per cent when he came to office.

It may be true that construction costs are too high, that Victoria has been dudded by the Commonwealth, and that there have been problems linked to major projects inherited from the former Labor government.

The trouble is, for families stuck in traffic, or struggling with cost-of-living pressures, or worried about job security, or worried about education and health, such arguments will almost certainly continue to fall flat.

The families upon whose vote Baillieu will depend on care not a jot about the triple-A credit rating, or a failure by Canberra to launch a Productivity Commission inquiry into construction costs.

Victorians primarily want from state politicians improved service delivery and better infrastructure.

Baillieu may have inherited power at a tough time and he may be facing some big challenges. But if he has any hope of winning the next election, he will need to adopt a more positive tone and agenda for Victoria, showing that he actually understands the challenges faced by voters.